[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Maduri Thirupathi vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 25680 of 2023
07thApril, 2026
Between:
1. Maduri Thirupathi, and others
... Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Telangana, and others
... Respondents
ORDER:
The case of the petitioners, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that
acquisition proceedings were initiated by the authorities for the National
Highway expansion project, which affected the petitioners' agricultural
lands and residential houses. The petitioners contend that they belong to
economically weaker sections with marginal landholdings and dependent on
agriculture, traditional occupations, and daily wage labor, and their lands
were subjected to acquisition proceedings under the National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI) Act. According to the petitioners, the authorities
proceeded without strictly adhering to due process and passed compensation
awards for land and structures. Dissatisfied with the compensation amounts,
the petitioners filed arbitration applications before the District Collector,
which remain pending, and accepted the compensation under protest.
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
1.1 The petitioners contend that, in addition to compensation under
the First Schedule of Act 30 of 2013, they are legally entitled to
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits the Second Schedule and
infrastructural support under the Third Schedule, by virtue of the Right to
Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(RFCTLARR) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, which extends such
benefits to acquisitions under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule,
including the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Act. The
petitioners state that this legal position was acknowledged even in the award
proceedings themselves. Acting on this understanding, the petitioners made
representations to the authorities requesting extension of R&R benefits.
However, the District Collector, through Memo No. G1/2210/2018 dated
15.05.2023, communicated that the Project Director of NHAI had clarified
that the R&R provisions of Act 30 of 2013 are not applicable to the
petitioners, and therefore no such entitlements would be granted. The
petitioners contend that refusing R&R benefits to them is contrary to law.
1.2 The petitioners further allege that the respondent authorities
failed to respond meaningfully to their representations and neglected their
statutory duties with a lack of diligence, forcing the petitioners to approach
the Court, thereby incurring additional financial burden. The
petitionersassert that the authorities are proceeding to dispossess them on
the ground that compensation has already been awarded and paid. The
petitioners contend that this action is illegal as it would render them
homeless and cause irreparable injury as no R&R benefits were granted.The
petitioners contend that the authorities are under a clear legal obligation to
extend full R&R benefits, and their failure violates fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 4threspondent-Project Director,
NHAI, essentially contending that the petitioners have already been granted
all legally admissible compensation and that their claim for Rehabilitation
and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable. It is contended
that the land acquisition proceedings for the Karimnagar-Warangal section
of National Highway-563 were conducted by the competent authority,
namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hanumakonda, in accordance with
the National Highways Act, 1956. The required land was duly surveyed by
the Revenue and Survey Department, following which a notification under
Section 3-D of the National Highways Act was issued and published in the
Gazette. After completing all statutory procedures and granting adequate
opportunity of hearing to affected parties, the competent authority passed
the land acquisition award bearing No. GI/F/1400-3/2020 dated 10.01.2022.
This award included compensation for land as well as structures, along with
all statutory benefits. The respondent emphasizes that compensation
amounts were duly credited into the bank accounts of the landowners.
2.1 Elaborating on the computation of compensation, the
4threspondent states that the petitioners were granted 100% solatium on both
lands and structures, along with an additional 12% market value calculated
from the date of the Section 3A notification to the date of the award, and a
multiplication factor of 1.5 applicable to rural areas. It is contended that this
package constitutes "reasonable compensation" in compliance with both the
National Highways Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act
insofar as they apply. Addressing the petitioners' dissatisfaction with the
compensation amounts, the respondent contends that the law provides a
specific remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
allowing aggrieved landowners to approach the Arbitrator-cum-District
Collector for enhancement.
2.2 With regard to the issue of Rehabilitation and Resettlement,
which forms the crux of the dispute, it is contended that the present project
is a "linear project," namely a highway expansion, and does not involve
large-scale displacement or resettlement of families. Further, the Third
Schedule of the 2013 Act applies only to projects involving acquisition of
large contiguous blocks of land, such as hydel projects, industrial townships,
or urbanization schemes, and therefore the Third Schedule has no
application to national highway projects. It is also contended that, as a
matter of fact, there is no displacement of families in the present case,
thereby negating the very basis of the petitioners' claim to R&R benefits.
2.3 It is contended that under Section 105 of the 2013 Act, the laws
listed in the Fourth Schedule--like the National Highways Act, 1956--are
not covered by this Act unless the Central Government issues a notification
to include them. It is stated that no such notification was issued within one
year, so the rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) provisions do not apply to
land acquired under the National Highways Act. Therefore, it is contended
that the petitioners have no legal right to ask for R&R benefits. Referring to
Section 3J of the National Highways Act, it is contended that the Land
Acquisition Act does not apply to the present case.
2.4 It is contended that the statutory requirements were
meticulously followed, including proper survey, notification, hearing, and
award determination, and there was no procedural irregularity or lack of due
process. It is contended that no displacement occurred and therefore the
petitioners are not entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits. It is
further contended that the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
of arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, and
therefore the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No. 7-Revenue Divisional
Officer-cum-Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA),
Hanumakonda District, essentially contending that the petitioners have
already been granted due compensation in compliance with applicable law,
and that their claim for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits is
legally unsustainable, particularly in the context of a linear infrastructure
project such as a national highway.
3.1 It is contended that the acquisition process commenced upon a
formal requisition submitted by the Project Director, NHAI, Project
Implementation Unit, Hyderabad, seeking acquisition of lands across 11
villages spanning Elkathurthy, Hasanparthy, and Hanumakonda Mandals for
the public purpose of laying four lanes of the new National Highway-563.
Acting on this requisition, a notification under Section 3A(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 (Act No. 48 of 1956) was issued through Gazette No.
S.O.1783(E) dated 05.06.2020, declaring the intention to acquire specified
lands and inviting objections from interested persons within a period of 21
days from the date of publication. To ensure public awareness, this
notification was also published in newspapers, namely Mana Telangana
(Telugu) and The Hans India (English), on 13.06.2020. It is contended that
these steps demonstrate full compliance with procedural requirements,
including affording an opportunity to affected persons to raise objections. It
is also contended that, following due procedure, compensation for the
acquired lands was determined in accordance with the provisions of Act 30
of 2013 and duly paid to the affected landowners. It is stated that,
subsequently, some awardees submitted a petition before the District
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
Collector, Hanumakonda, seeking R&R benefits under the 2013 Act. This
request was formally disposed of by the District Collector, Warangal,
through proceedings in Memo No. G1/2210/2018 dated 15.05.2023,
wherein it was clarified that the benefits under the Second and Third
Schedules of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 would not arise in the present case
and that revision or updating of market value for compensation was also not
applicable. This official communication is relied upon by the respondent as
authoritative confirmation of the inapplicability of R&R provisions.
3.2 It is contended that a clarification has been obtained from the
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, before passing of the
award, which stated that Rehabilitation and Resettlement provisions apply
only in cases involving large-scale displacement and resettlement, such as
hydel projects, industrial townships, or urbanization schemes. According to
this clarification, such circumstances do not arise in linear projects like
national highways, and therefore the Third Schedule of the 2013 Act is not
attracted to the present case.
3.3 It is contended that all statutory steps--including issuance of
notifications, publication in the Gazette and newspapers, and consideration
of objections--were duly followed, and therefore the petitioners cannot
state that they were deprived of lawful entitlements. It is further contended
that the provisions under the Fourth Schedule read with Sections 105 and
106 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, do not apply to acquisitions under the
National Highways Act, 1956 unless specifically extended and notified by
the Central Government, which is not the case here.
3.4 It is further contended that some of the landowners, who were
dissatisfied with the compensation, have already availed the statutory
remedy of arbitration by filing appropriate petitions before the Arbitrator-
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
cum-District Collector, Hanumakonda, seeking enhancement based on
prevailing market value, and their cases are currently under examination,
and the competent authority will take an appropriate decision. It is therefore
contended that the petitioners herein also have the statutory remedy of
arbitration, and a writ petition is an improper attempt to bypass the
established statutory mechanism. It is therefore contended that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the acquisition proceedings, and further the claim of
R & R benefits is a misinterpretation of law, however, the grievance
whatsoever, can be adjudicated under the arbitration mechanism, and
therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit, in response to the counter
affidavit of respondent No.4-Project Director, NHAI. It is contended that a
writ petition is fully maintainable both in law and on facts, emphasizing that
it is grounded in "clear and established legal provisions" entitling displaced
families to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under Act 30 of
2013, and that the respondents' contrary claim lacks any substantiating
reasoning. It is contended that there is no blanket exemption in the statute
and that the applicability of the Third Schedule depends on the fact of
displacement, not the nature of the project. He underscores that in his own
village alone approximately 50 houses are being acquired, and in
neighboring villages around 100 houses are affected for the same National
Highway-563 project, thereby establishing a significant scale of
displacement sufficient to warrant organized resettlement and corresponding
infrastructural facilities.
4.1 It is contended that while the petitioners may pursue
enhancement of compensation through appropriate legal remedies, the core
grievance is the complete denial of R&R entitlements under the Second and
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
Third Schedules. It is contended that the respondents' assertion that there is
"no displacement," is contradictory to the official record. It is contended
that the very award proceedings and notifications relied upon by the
respondents acknowledge acquisition of residential houses and payment of
compensation for house sites and structures, and therefore it is logically
impossible for affected families to continue residing in houses that have
been acquired and that would be demolished for road construction. The
petitioners point out the contradiction in the stand of respondents as the
respondents partially accept the applicability of the Second Schedule while
denying the Third Schedule. It is contended that if house-losing families are
entitled to alternative housing under the Second Schedule, then, particularly
where the number of affected families is substantial--as in this case--they
must necessarily be resettled in a common area with basic infrastructure,
which is precisely what the Third Schedule mandates. The petitioners
therefore contend that respondents have failed to prepare any R&R scheme
under Section 31 of Act 30 of 2013 to this erroneous interpretation of law.
4.2 It is contended that the respondents' reliance on Section 105 of
Act 30 of 2013 to claim non-applicability of R&R provisions to National
Highway acquisitions is misplaced, and misconceived argument, as the
respondents themselves applied provisions of the Act, specifically Sections
26 to 30, to determine compensation, yet simultaneously deny the
applicability of the same statute for R&R benefits. He further relies on the
Notification dated 28.08.2015 (S.O. 2368) issued by the Ministry of Rural
Development, Government of India--which is stated to extend both
compensation and R&R provisions of Act 30 of 2013 to enactments listed in
the Fourth Schedule, including the National Highways Act, 1956. The
petitioners therefore contend that the admitted facts--namely, acquisition of
houses, payment of compensation under Act 30 of 2013, and the existence
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
of the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order--clearly establish the
applicability of R&R provisions to the petitioners, and therefore the failure
of the authorities to extend these benefits constitutes a clear legal infirmity
in the acquisition process. It is also contended that the reliance on Section 3J
of the National Highways Act, 1956 is outdated and inapplicable in light of
the evolved legal framework post-2013; and hence the petitioners are
rightfully entitled to the R&R benefits.
5. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners;
learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, learned Standing Counsel for
CALA,and Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition of
the petitioners' lands and residential houses for the National Highway
project, though purportedly under the National Highways Act, 1956, has
been carried out in violation of the statutory mandate of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly insofar as denial of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (R&R) benefits is concerned. It is argued that while
compensation has been determined by applying provisions of the 2013 Act,
the respondents have arbitrarily refused to extend benefits under the Second
and Third Schedules, despite the applicability of the RFCTLARR (Removal
of Difficulties) Order, 2015, which expressly extends such entitlements to
acquisitions under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioners, being economically vulnerable and
displaced from their residential houses, are clearly entitled to R&R benefits,
and the plea of "no displacement" taken by the respondents is ex facie
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
contradictory to the acquisition records and award proceedings. It is further
contended that the respondents have failed to prepare any R&R scheme as
mandated under Section 31 of the 2013 Act and have adopted an
inconsistent stand by partially accepting applicability of the Second
Schedule while denying the Third Schedule, which is legally untenable. The
counsel argues that reliance on Section 105 of the 2013 Act and Section 3J
of the National Highways Act is misconceived and contrary to the evolved
statutory framework and binding notifications. It is also submitted that
pendency of arbitration for enhancement of compensation does not dilute
the independent and statutory right to R&R benefits. The impugned action
of the respondents in denying such benefits and proceeding with
dispossession is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the
Constitution, and results in grave and irreparable prejudice by rendering the
petitioners homeless without lawful rehabilitation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitionersrelies on:
1) Ranivr Singh v. National Highways Authority of India 1
2) Rampal Singh v. National Highways Authority of India 2
3) Madi Satyavati v. State of Telangana3
4) Akkala Chandrakala v. The State of Telangana 4;
7.1. In Ranivr Singh (supra), the Allahabad High Court addressed
petitions by displaced families who claimed that the National Highway
Authority of India had failed to provide mandatory rehabilitation and
resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and
2023 SCC OnLine All 5276
Neutral Citation No: 2024:AHC:72392 - DB (Allahabad High Court)
W.A. No. 676 of 2023 (Telangana High Court)
W.P. No. 11486 of 2024 (Telangana High Court)
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. The Court held that the status of affected families must be properly
assessed, rejecting the authorities' contention that linear road projects cause
minimal disruption. It directed the competent authority to conduct a
thorough inquiry and submit a resettlement proposal to the District
Collector, ensuring that eligible landowners receive entitlements such as
housing units, employment opportunities, or relocation allowances as part of
their compensation.
7.2. In Rampal Singh (supra), the Allahabad High Court
considered the entitlement of landowners to rehabilitation and resettlement
benefits following land acquisition for national highways. The Court
confirmed that while the National Highways Act, 1956 governs the
acquisition, the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act must still be applied to
affected families. A key point of contention involved whether the District
Collector or the competent authority designated under highway law should
finalise these awards. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the competent
authority holds the power to determine these specific entitlements to ensure
consistency with existing highway statutes. To prevent excessive litigation,
the bench also requested that the Central Government issue a formal circular
clarifying these legal requirements for all future cases.
7.3. In Madi Satyavati (supra), the Division Bench of this Court
dealt with a matter pertaining to land acquisition for a railway project; and
held that not only the mother, but also her three daughters, qualify as an
affected family under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and modified a
prior order to ensure that rehabilitation benefits are determined for the
daughters in addition to the mother's solatium and allowed the appellants to
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
seek a formal reference if they are dissatisfied with the final monetary
compensation, reinforcing that the rights of all affected family members
must be recognized in land acquisition cases.
7.4. In Akkala Chandrakala (supra), this Courtconsidered a
dispute over land acquisition for the development of National Highway
765DG. The petitioners, whose homes were being acquired, sought
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, while government authorities argued that such
benefits were not applicable to the road-widening project under the National
Highways Act, 1956. This Court, by interim order dated 12.11.2024,
rejected the authorities' prayer to vacate an earlier stay order and indicated
that highway acquisitions remain subject to modern R&R protections, and
granted status quo until final hearing, while allowing authorities to begin the
formal process of determining and awarding R&R compensation.
8. Learned standing counsel for the NHAI contends that the entire
acquisition process for the National Highway project was carried out strictly
in accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956, after due survey,
issuance of statutory notifications, and affording opportunity of hearing,
culminating in a valid award dated 10.01.2022 granting full and lawful
compensation. It is submitted that the petitioners were paid comprehensive
compensation including market value, 100% solatium, 12% additional
amount, and applicable multiplier, which together constitute fair and
reasonable compensation in line with applicable provisions of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel argues that any grievance
regarding quantum of compensation must be pursued through the statutory
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5), and the writ petition is therefore
not maintainable. It is further contended that the claim for Rehabilitation
and Resettlement (R&R) benefits is wholly misconceived, as the present
project is a linear highway project that does not involve large-scale
displacement or resettlement. It is asserted that, in fact, no displacement has
occurred, thereby negating the foundational requirement for claiming R&R
benefits. The counsel submits that the Third Schedule of the 2013 Act is
inapplicable to such projects and is confined to acquisitions involving large
contiguous land parcels. It is also contended that by virtue of Section 105 of
the 2013 Act, enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, including the
National Highways Act, are excluded from the application of R&R
provisions, in the absence of a specific notification extending such benefits.
Reliance is further placed on Section 3J of the National Highways Act to
contend that provisions of the Land Acquisition regime do not apply. It is
thus urged that there is no illegality, procedural lapse, or denial of any
statutory entitlement, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned standing counsel for the Competent Authority for Land
Acquisition (CALA) contends that the acquisition proceedings were
conducted strictly in accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956,
pursuant to a valid requisition from NHAI for the National Highway-563
project, and that all statutory requirements, including issuance of
notification under Section 3A, publication in the Gazette and newspapers,
and consideration of objections, were duly complied with. It is submitted
that compensation for the acquired lands and structures was determined and
paid in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, and thus the petitioners have received all lawful entitlements. Learned
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
counsel contends that the claim for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R)
benefits is misconceived, as the present acquisition pertains to a linear
highway project which does not involve large-scale displacement
warranting application of the Second and Third Schedules. It is further
contended that the District Collector, through Memo dated 15.05.2023, has
already clarified the inapplicability of R&R benefits, based on inputs from
NHAI, and the same is binding. The counsel submits that the provisions of
the 2013 Act relating to R&R do not automatically apply to enactments
listed in the Fourth Schedule, including the National Highways Act, in view
of Sections 105 and 106, in the absence of a specific notification by the
Central Government. It is also contended that there is no procedural
irregularity or violation of due process at any stage of acquisition. The
learned counsel further submits that aggrieved landowners have already
invoked the statutory remedy of arbitration for enhancement of
compensation, which is pending consideration, and the petitioners also have
an efficacious alternative remedy. It is thus contended that the writ petition
is an attempt to bypass the statutory mechanism, that the claim for R&R
benefits is based on a misinterpretation of law, and that the petition is liable
to be dismissed.
10. Learned Additional Solicitor General relies on several judgments in
support of his contention that a writ remedy is not maintainable in the
instant case; particularly on Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of
Maharashtra5 and contends that the Courts have to weigh the public
interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power and there
are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong, and
that quashing of acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress.
1997 (1) SCC 134
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
10.1. He also relies on Nerajala Nageswara Rao v. Union of
India 6, to contend that alternative remedy harsh one should not be resorted
in public purpose projects and larger public purpose prevails over individual
interest. He also relies on N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain7, to
contend that construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in
view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be
stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay
the construction of the infrastructure project.
10.2. He also relies on Bluepark Seafoods (P) Ltd v. District
Collector8 and contends that in case of acquisition for benefit of general
public, the landowner can stake claim for reasonable compensation and
nothing beyond that. Relying on NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd9,
it is contended that National Highways Act is a special enactment and a
comprehensive code which provides an inbuilt mechanism for initiating
acquisition until culmination of the proceedings in determining the
compensation and its adjudication by arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the
NH Act.
10.3. He also relies on the judgment of the High Court of
Karnataka, at Bengaluru, in W.P.No.10103 of 2020 (LA-RES) and
batch, dated 19.07.2022, and contends that in the said case, the High Court
of Karnataka has set aside the awards passed by the CALA and directed the
authority to redetermine the compensation afresh, and if the parties are
aggrieved by the fresh awards passed by the CALA, the parties can
approach the arbitrator.
2017 SCC Online Hyd 250
2022 (6) SCC 127
2011 SCC OnLine AP 267
(2020) 15 SCC 161
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
10.4. He also relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M/s Tirupati Developers v. The Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli10, and contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the
Collector to give one opportunity to the appellant therein to submit its
objections, followed by personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate
award after holding inquiry under Section 23 of the RTCTLARR Act, and
therefore similar dispensation is attracted in the present writ petition as well
in view of similarity of facts.
11. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record,
it may be noted that the essential grievance of the petitioners is that their
agricultural lands and residential houses were acquired for a National
Highway project under the NHAI Act and that, although compensation was
awarded and accepted under protest (with arbitration applications for
enhancement still pending), they have been denied Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (R&R) benefits. It is the specific contention of the petitioners
that by virtue of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as extended through the 2015
Removal of Difficulties Order, they are legally entitled not only to
compensation but also to R&R benefits under the Second and Third
Schedules, even in acquisitions under the NHAI Act. Despite this, the
authorities refused such benefits based on an NHAI clarification which is
alleged to be contrary to law. They further allege that the authorities failed
to properly consider their representations and are proceeding to dispossess
them without granting R&R benefits, thereby rendering them homeless and
causing irreparable harm. According to the petitioners, this denial is
arbitrary, violates statutory obligations, and infringes their constitutional
rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A.
Civil Appeal No.4952 of 2023, dated August 7, 2023
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
11.1. On the contrary, the essential contention of the respondents
(NHAI and CALA authorities) is that the petitioners have already received
legally admissible compensation for their lands and structures acquired for
the Karimnagar-Warangal section of National Highway-563 under the
National Highways Act, 1956, following all statutory procedures, including
survey, notification, hearing, and award. It is the specific contention of the
respondents that the petitioners' claim for Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(R&R) benefits under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is legally misconceived,
as the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules apply only to large-
scale displacement projects (e.g., hydel projects, industrial townships), not
linear infrastructure projects like national highways, and no Central
Government notification under the Fourth Schedule has extended these
benefits to acquisitions under the NHAI Act. It is contended that in the
instant case, there is no acquisition of the entire village or villages, requiring
the villagers, along with their cattle, livestock, houses, and livelihood, to be
entirely shifted/relocated to an alternative location, and re-establish the
village at some other place entirely. It is the specific contention of the
respondents that only such limited extent of land(s),which is falling under
the highway alignment, have been acquired, and therefore there cannot be
any contention of displacement of persons requiring rehabilitation and
resettlement. It is however contended that, for any structures, standing
crops, trees etc., that are legally permissible to exist on such agricultural
land,and certified to be existing on agricultural land as on the date of
acquisition by the competent authority, the affected petitioners are entitled
to monetary compensation for such structures/standing crops/trees, as the
case may be; and the petitioners can agitate their grievance if any with
regard to insufficiency of pecuniary compensation for land, or compensation
for legally permissible structures or standing crops etc., before the
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
arbitrator, and that writ petition cannot be used to bypass the statutory
mechanisms.
12. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty 11, wherein it
was held as follows:
"24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally
managed statutory body having expertise in the field of
development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects
involving construction of new highways and widening and
development of the existing highways, which are vital for
development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to
experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast
knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and
maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to
development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough
study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are
prepared keeping in view the relevant factors including intensity of
heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not
at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the
particular project and whether the particular alignment would
subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of
judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition
of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is
found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to
mala fides."
13. Further, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.774 of 2024, dated
(2011) 12 SCC 69
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
07.08.2024, which is an appeal filed challenging a Notification for laying a
national highway. The Hon'ble Division Bench, by referring to various
precedent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly
Kushala Shetty (supra), held as follows:
"12. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the
projects involving construction of new highways and widening and
development of existing highways are vital for development of
infrastructure of the country. The projects have been entrusted to
the experts in the field of highways and it comprises of persons
having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway
development and maintenance. The NHAI is implementing the
project relating to development and maintenance after thorough
study by experts.
13. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of the notification issued
under the Act, award has already been passed on 10.05.2022 and
petitioners No.8 and 11 in W.P.No.24150 of 2021 have even received
the compensation. The project is virtually complete except for a
small stretch."
14. In this connection, it is to be noted that under Section 3G of the
National Highways Act, determination of compensation is entrusted to the
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA). Significantly, Section
3G(5) expressly provides that where the amount determined by the
Competent Authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the matter
shall, on application, be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central
Government--ordinarily the District Collector. Thus, the statute itself
creates a complete adjudicatory mechanism for redressal of disputes relating
to compensation.
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
15. Further, once the Arbitrator renders an award under Section 3G(5) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, such award is governed by the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and the persons aggrieved by
the arbitral award has a further statutory remedy under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the competent Civil Court.
16. Though the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to invoking
the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, its invocation comes
with the rider that there should be exceptional circumstances, warranting
invocation under Article 226 bypassing the statutory remedy. In this context,
it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks 12, wherein the
Supreme Court held as follows:
"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having
regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself
certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally
exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least
three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed
for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where
there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where
the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires
of an Act is challenged."
17. In the instant writ petition, this Court does not find any violation of
fundamental rights per se, or any violation of the principles of natural
justice, or any jurisdictional error on the part of the respondent authorities;
1998 (8) SCC 1
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
nor does the writ petition challenge the vires of the Act passed by the
competent authority. Further, it is the specific unrebutted contention of the
respondents, borne out by the record, that out of 1035 landowners whose
lands were acquired or in process of acquisition, 859 landowners have
already received compensation.
18. Though the petitioners do not challenge the acquisition, their
grievance is about thedetermination and payment of rehabilitation and
resettlement benefits under the RFCTLARR framework as applied to
acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.Though the petitioners
contend that they are entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, it
cannot be disputed that the competent authority should have certified that a
particular petitioner has been displaced and is entitled to resettlement and
rehabilitation benefits.
19. Furthermore, in land acquisition proceedings of this nature, which is a
larger public purpose, connecting highways across states, the grievance is
justiciable by approaching the arbitration mechanism provided under the
National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996; and a writ remedy cannot be used to stall the project of this nature
eternally, leading to project delays, thereby causing compounding loss to the
exchequer.
20. Furthermore, the petitioners have a two-step statutory remedy, one
under the National Highways Act, 1956 and, if still aggrieved, the second
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore the
petitioners are not remediless. It is not the case of either of the parties that
they cannot adduce necessary documentary material with regard to the claim
wp_25680_2023
NBK, J
of rehabilitation and resettlement, apart from certification if any done by the
competent authority with regard to the alleged displacement of the
petitioners.
21. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kushala
Shetty (supra), and Whirlpool Corporation (supra), and also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.774 of 2024, dated
07.08.2024, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstances to
entertain the writ petitionbypassing the statutory arbitration mechanism
provided under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioners
to avail the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways
Act, 1956 and thereafter, if necessary, under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996. No costs. Interim order dated 21.09.2023 stands
vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
07thApril, 2026
ksm
